ArticleNeuro-degenerative diseases2026
Just Semantics? How Diagnostic Criteria Influence Physician-Patient Narratives in Alzheimer's Disease.
Article in Neuro-degenerative diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe current diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is shaped by the Alzheimer's Association (AA) and the International Working Group (IWG) criteria. While both frameworks lead to similar physician-patient conversations when disclosing biomarker results to patients with cognitive impairment, they diverge significantly for cognitively unimpaired individuals. The aim of this paper is to explore these differences and their associated epistemological and ethical implications, through simulated, case-based physician-patient conversations.
methodsThe conversations were developed on the basis of clinical experience, exchanges with patients and carers, insights from a targeted narrative literature review and were subsequently refined with large language model assistance.
resultsOur analysis highlights that the AA framework reinforces a deterministic narrative by equating amyloid biomarker positivity with disease and raising a misunderstanding of illness. In contrast, the IWG framework is consistent with the incomplete penetrance of AD pathology and frames biomarker positivity in cognitively unimpaired individuals as a risk condition. We acknowledge that the IWG framework enables more complex but also more realistic physician-patient conversations.
conclusionPhysician-patient conversations employing a carefully selected lexicon, reflecting patient-centred outcomes, may promote patient engagement, compliance with medical recommendations, and, ultimately, societal trust in medicine and physicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.